AMD should bump its single core CPU clock
A 3.2GHZ single core is better than a 2GHZ dual core, and cheaper to make too.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 11/23/2006 08:01:00 PM
Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing
Main Blog Page
Site Feed:
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
sharikou.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Blog Roll
Hot pages
- Price War Strategic Analysis
- AMD and Intel Performance
- Intel's false performance claims
- AMD's Architecture Lead Persists
- AMD and Intel Performance
- AMD and Intel Architecture
- Bensley/Woodcrest and Athlon MP
- Bensley/Woodcrest is 2P only
- 64bit CORE Performance!
- Conroe Busted
- Capacity: AMD vs Intel
- Conroe's Impact
- AMD and Intel in China
- A Beautiful Picture!
- Temperature and System Reliability
- Google and AMD
- AMD's Grand Masters
- Intel's Predicament
- AMD and Dell
- NGMA Core and Colwell 6th Gen Arch
- AMD and Intel History
- The Tale of Intel and Anand
Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
About Me
- Name: Sharikou, Ph. D.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
Previous Posts
- AMD the saviour
- How to analyse the Intel vs AMD competitive situation
- Intel Clovertown quad fragged by Opteron dual
- Hector and the one
- Turion 64 for high class people
- Constitutionality of $750 price tag for a song
- Intel graphics not good for kids games
- AMD shifting production to mobile
- vPro rejected at Round Rock
- DELL to be 50% AMD soon
42 Comments:
Yields, Doc, yields...
"A 3.2GHZ single core is better than a 2GHZ dual core, and cheaper to make too."
...and more difficult to make too!
Further, a single 3.2 GHz core have more "hot spot" and higher power consumption than a dual 2 GHz cpu, a dual core can ever "switch off"(sort of)an unutilized core to save power.
Intel's at it again, pressuring Via to drop processor making:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35930
A 3.2GHZ single core is better than a 2GHZ dual core, and cheaper to make too.
Yes, maybe in a delusional world where increasing the target clock frequency doesn’t have a massive impact on yield. Driving your mass market processor close to its clock frequency limit will only lessen your volume significantly without getting any more profit from it. Intel has cornered this market with its lowest binning 1.8Ghz Core2Duo selling less than $200.
You and AMD should stop playing around and stop hatching ridiculous ideas with obsolete technology. Control the top and you control market pricing.
I think you are complettly exagerating. I prefer my Single core 3700+ than one of the 3800+.
Too bad single core CPUs got removed from reviews.
Singlecores are better only when you are not multitasking and in some older games.
Also, didn't you say some time ago that AMD65nm CPU's will be running 4GHz+?
All that may change with multi-thread becomes more prevalent.
i don't think that there will be many singelcore's that will run 3.2, i've triede some of these AM2 and while they are ok and decent overclockers, i have not gotten 3.2 out of any of them at standard Vcore.. but it would be nice of AMD started to make most of them at 2.6 and above, and as Cheap as possible, you could make kickass computeres at low cost, however.. Dualcore will still seem faster when you multitask.
Why is a 3.2 GHz single core better than a 2 GHz dual-core?
Apart from that making no sense at all...
Cheaper to make - no
easier to make - hell no
Too bad 2.8GHz singlecores cost more than 2.6GHz dualcores
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103558
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103758
2.6GHz singlecores cost more than 2.2GHz dualcores:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103526
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103747
For some reason I doubt 3.2GHz single core CPU would be cheaper than 2GHz dualcore.
Nothing better to do on thanksgiving eve?
By the way, a 3.2GHz single core processor is only good if you are a gamer or run low intensity apps.
Dual cores are the future, there is hardly a price range for a single core athlon 64 as it is right now. I can pick up an opteron 165 for 160$. You are suggesting that people buy single core processors for 150$?
A better idea would be for AMD to bump their dual-core clock speed.
http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?id=120070892&forumid=1
Sharikou this guys say Core 2 Duo suck, and may die sooner if OC.
And I was thinking that Intel was keeping clock speeds down because they didn’t want to annihilate their 95% processor stock (P4, PD, ...).
After all there was another problem, HEAT.
I'm sure a lot of people would agree if they sold them for $50.
Wow doc. You're amazing.
"After all there was another problem, HEAT."
You must be thinking lack of heat since under 70% OC my C2D is <40C on full load
I can't believe the ignorance on this site.. YOu retards don't know shit about technology
1) 50% yields are a disaster. Anyone with 50% yields shouldn't be in the business.
2) Binsplit for higher frequency isn't hard on 65nm. If design is done right.. The issue was and is power you monkey.
My old AMD-64 3400 (3 years old) just pasted the Vista test (Windows Vista Adviser) for business & Media. It just listed 4 drivers to download before hand (printer, graphics card, scanner and finger print reader) I checked and they are all available. I’ll buy a new machine anyway (3 years home office depreciation schedule).
Millions of consumers will be thrilled they purchased AMD 64 and won’t need a new machine. At the time of purchase the box wasn’t anymore than a 32-bit P3/P4 machine.
To check your machine;
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
Anónimo dijo...
I can't believe the ignorance on this site.. YOu retards don't know shit about technology
1) 50% yields are a disaster. Anyone with 50% yields shouldn't be in the business.
2) Binsplit for higher frequency isn't hard on 65nm. If design is done right.. The issue was and is power you monkey.
11:29 AM, November 24, 2006
tell that to SONY SIRE!!
I doubt conroe started with more than 20% yield..
Wait - wasn't that an old intel tactic? "Higher Clock Speeds = better processor?"
So it looks like you took Intels previous idiotic theory with you when they fired you, huh?
Maybe instead of "4x4", AMD should put 8 sockets on a board, and go for "1x8".
They could call it OCTOPEDE64.
You better send this intelligence to the big brains at AMD right away.
“AMD Server Revenue Up 79.7% Year on Year”
Do you Intel-ies see the trend? Can you see the Woodcrest isn’t helping your cause? Even with all the Intel hype your still loosing market share. Do you know why?
“I can't believe the ignorance on this site.. YOu retards don't know shit about technology”
“1) 50% yields are a disaster. Anyone with 50% yields shouldn't be in the business.”
Please read and comprehend. The blogger stated “even with” which is the article before the preposition (50% yields). Which means EVEN WITH a 50% yield you could supply 30% of the market. It doesn’t mean they only have a 50% yield.
That’s how I see it and I flunked English.
"If design is done right.. The issue was and is power you monkey."
Take a look at P4EE. Even if the design is done NOT right, power doesn't seem to be an issue (for "EE"). Or does it?
“2) Binsplit for higher frequency isn't hard on 65nm. If design is done right.. The issue was and is power you monkey.”
65nm is about power, however due to large cache dependency in Intel’s prehistoric design Intel needs 65nm. It takes a lot of power to turn on/off all those transistors in large cache, which is where Intel gets its speed.
65nm helps the power hungry design. I’m not an historian but I believe Columbus brought this design over on the Mayflower. The design was by monkeys for monkeys.
“Anonymous said...
I can't believe the ignorance on this site.. YOu retards don't know shit about technology”
Oh my………so much pain. I’m going to recommend you should take a time out. Better yet, go stand in the corner.
“ Intel's at it again, pressuring Via to drop processor making:’
The only way Intel can get market share is push Via around.
Pathetic!
"65nm is about power, however due to large cache dependency in Intel’s prehistoric design Intel needs 65nm. It takes a lot of power to turn on/off all those transistors in large cache, which is where Intel gets its speed"
Actually the cache is the coolest part of the chip.
Even with all the Intel hype your still loosing market share. Do you know why?
Intel gained x86 market share sequentially for the first time in 4 years and Intel-branded processors maintained 80.2% of all x86 server spending in the quarter.
Come again?
I’m not an historian but I believe Columbus brought this design over on the Mayflower. The design was by Intel for Intel.
Why do Intel-ies defend what Intel its self is ashamed of?
On the eve of Conroe release they also made this announcement “were going to release a new architecture every two years”.
TRANSLATION; we know this is a tweaked P3 with large cache that still uses FSB.
At the time Intel was being brutally hammered about the power to watt performance issues and they knew they would be buying some time beating AMD to 65nm thus making their CPU’s temporarily expectable. Intel was embarrassed because it was widely known they were caught sleeping and were releasing a newly package P3.
Further proof was shortly after they released new commercials that started using the slogan “Worlds Best Processors”. They chose the title them selves, how convenient.
TRANSLATION; This architecture will be replace as soon as possible, but until then our new slogan will keep our shareholders happy and the public will buy anything.
Intel figured there architecture would last for years, how else can you explain the huge overstock.
You Ineliots still don't get it.Conroe is competing against a 3-year old K8 design and beats it -JUST. Once the K8L comes out, Conroe will be consigned to the dustbin, where it will join HeatBurst et al.
Furthermore, if Conroe is so good, why are Intel going to bring out a new architecture every 2 years??
The AMD fanboys like claiming that the Core 2 CPU is just "a repackaged Pentium 3". Does this mean that AMD's best processors are beaten by over 30% by Pentium 3s!? That sounds even more pathetic for AMD. As the results in Flash benchmarks at gamepc.com clearly show:- AMD FX 62 is slower than the cheapest Core 2 E6300.
Here's an interesting take.
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/11/intel-from-winnie-pooh-to-red-bull.html
“Intel gained x86 market share sequentially for the first time in 4 years and Intel-branded processors maintained 80.2% of all x86 server spending in the quarter.”
Now this is interesting, AMD claims 79.7% increase year over year in server and Intel claims it has maintained its market share in x 86 servers.
"Furthermore, if Conroe is so good, why are Intel going to bring out a new architecture every 2 years??"
Because they can create a better architecture after every two years?
Basically Intel's plan is this:
1) Create a new architecture on current processing design with N cores
2) slap two of the cores to one die for N+N cores (a'la Kentsfield)
3) move to new manufacturing technology
4) create a replacement for N+N CPU with 2N CPU (a'la native quadcore that comes after Kentsfield)
5) repeat
A new core comes out in around step 4
"Now this is interesting, AMD claims 79.7% increase year over year in server and Intel claims it has maintained its market share in x 86 servers."
It's simple: server market increased as a whole. Intel reported it kept the market share it had before, AMD reported it sold more than last year. Simple.
Now this is interesting, AMD claims 79.7% increase year over year in server and Intel claims it has maintained its market share in x 86 servers.
That is revenue not shipments. That basically means that the server market is still growing and that AMD is making more per sale now.
Furthermore, if Conroe is so good, why are Intel going to bring out a new architecture every 2 years??
Intel won't have a chance to bring out another architecture. It will have BKed before that. Everyone knows FSB architecture is obsolete. K8L will be a killer.
Everyone knows FSB architecture is obsolete
And still it is outperforming Athlon 64 in almost all consumer benchmarks.
"Everyone knows FSB architecture is obsolete. K8L will be a killer."
I can't wait to see what you will say when 45nm native-quadcore from Intel goes head-to-head against AMD quadcore :)
Anonymous said...
"And still it is outperforming Athlon 64 in almost all consumer benchmarks."
Benchmarks like the toy benchmark Super Pi? Against a 3 year old processor? Oooooh yea, real impressive.
In Intel's credit, it's a somewhat known fact Core 2 does better in SIMD (SSE) functions,(no surprise, P4 was the same way) however, in FP functions shows a different story and in 64-bit applications/OS an even more different story. While the gap is still there it's down to a mere %5-%10 deficit at best, hardly noticable in real world experiences IMHO.
As things are progressing, it's becoming obvious that the bus is becoming more and more vital to the overall system performance and less reliance on the processor for sheer performance(especially since the move to multi-core processors) as everything is basically "tied" to it concerning data-bandwidth. HT's point to point serial bus is still light years ahead of the Intel GTL bus in this area, especially with it's ability to scale in performance as the processor speeds/performance goes up. You can have the fastest processor on the planet, but if you can't feed it data fast enough, it's performance is ultimately going to be hindered. Intel can only "band-aid" the old GTL bus for so long to keep performance.(hence the eventual move to CSI/IMC)
Looking forward though, in about 6-7 months it won't matter though, Intel's Core 2 will more than meet it's match with K8L.
" Against a 3 year old processor? Oooooh yea, real impressive. "
Yes, against 3 year old benchmark with a CPU that simply a bit improved >6y old architecture.
Isn't it funny how Intel's new design based around an older architecture soundly beats AMD's newer designs? (newer for AMD being 3 years .vs Intels 6 year old architecture)
Isn't it funnier how the benches that have hit the streets today (both real world apps and synthetic benches) show the same architecture from AMD on a quad platform (4x4) getting soundly beat by Intels "older" architecture tweaked for the quad Core 2?
4x4 is a failure. By the time AMD comes out with K8L Intel will already have a counter to that as well. I doubt AMD will go under, and I think the competition is great, but the Pretender's ludicrous assertations that Intel will go under 2Q08 are farts in the wind. Just a disgruntled ex Intel employee who got fired for being a dumbass.
Post a Comment
<< Home